Brooding from the Cyclades
I am in Syros for my 47th birthday. Two years ago, I was thinking what would become of us from the inspiration provided by a detail of a monument erected to celebrate a victory of Prussia over France. The inspiration was a naked child scratching his head as if to ponder how to reconcile innocence with horror, which both define the world.
Reading myself again on this anniversary, we went through the best-case scenario of the possible catastrophes unravelling that I was entertaining, namely, the «freefall of the economy and a sudden collapse of the quality of life of Europeans.» With France now placed under the tutelage of the EU for its economic policy and buying debt at a higher cost than Spain, with drastic austerity measures yet to be announced and with raise of poverty (two million elderly people reported today as living under the poverty line), I believe the depiction was spot on.
The focus on France is largely because I'm French myself and tend to keep an eye on what is going there, the motherland of an orphan. But also because it's probably the first European country that will fall from its own account, as opposed to others that will fall because of the EU falling down or the sky falling down.
The worst-case scenario was alluding indeed to nuclear war, and although this was very far-fetched in 2022, this is now an option openly and routinely discussed at the highest levels. [1]
Putin recently updated the nuclear policy of Russia to allow its use against the type of situation that is unravelling as I write this, that is, active involvement of NATO (nuclear power) from within Ukraine (not a nuclear power). Putin says that Russia can now retaliate with nuclear weapons against a state which does not have any, if it is supported by a state which has. So much for the MAD doctrine.
I am baffled by the lightness with which the arguments are made in favour of still striking Russia, hard and deep. Several people (including Boris Jonhson) articulated them along the same line—which is basically calling chicken—but nobody did it better than Piers Morgan who managed to lower his reasoning to that of a child [2][3]: "Putin is bluffing; evidence of that is that he did not use the nuke despite now years of threatening to do so" and "Putin is not an Islamic fundamentalist so does not have the urge of self-destruction and thus will shy way".
One can approach these arguments in two ways: one can ridicule them for what they are, the flawed logic of extending inductive reasoning (the sun will rise tomorrow) to human affairs. Or one can scorn them for their ignorance of the History and spirit of the Russian people, who practised scorched earth against a bemused Napoléon, stroke in his military genius like an unsuspecting ballet dancer in his balls. Hitler similarly could not believe the hopeless, desperate, absurd, nihilist resistance of Leningrad and Stalingrad. They would have all died, to the very latest, before surrendering. How can one reduce one's vision of the world to fundamental Islamism, just because it makes the news, and overlook centuries of Russian mockery at self-destruction?
I have no doubt whatsoever that Russia will use the nuke if they are defeated militarily on this Ukrainian question. Reasons are simple: They see the ongoing war as existential. It is not the result of Putin suddenly deciding, out of the blue, to invade a defenceless country. It is a strategic balance of global dominance: if Russia lets NATO take Ukraine, it gives it the tacit right to take back Crimea next, and to dismantle the Russian Federation after that into a myriad of independent republics. This is existential. This is much more existential than the Cuban missile crisis, for which one could have wondered how resolute Kennedy truly was in going till the final push down. He is not, clearly, known for his Muslim fundamentalist inclinations. Still, everybody took the menace seriously. The problem with the respect we once had for Nuclear deterrence is that human beings learn to outgrow everything, even their wisdom. If we could avoid total annihilation for 50 years, hey, probably we're safe for the rest of time. That's the Pierce Morgan logic.
So, now 47, how do I see ourselves in two years time? All dead, with nonzero probability. Maybe 5%, 10%. Not much more than that. But we're speaking about the end of, not even Civilization, about the end of the World. Speak of a birthday treat!
If not all dead, ravished by a global change and re-equilibration of powers. With China (probably) and Russia (in its wake) taking over. This won't be pretty for the Occidental world. Maybe Russia will have pity of us. I believe they are sophisticated, civilized and, ultimately, merciful people. I believe we disappoint them more than we enrage them. We'll likely be given a rough beating, but, with time, it'll all come back to normal. They have Tchaïkovsky and Tolstoy. When you have that, you have the rest of the World inside you. We won't be annihilated.
I would, of course, prefer the Occident to retain, if not its dominion, which is usurped, but its influence, its leadership. However, we've lost all manners, decency and even common sense. We seem to be going for the desperate what-the-hell approach («foutu pour foutu») of making bad things worse. The final plan seems to be, we're broke, let's have the Armaggedon clean the place. The only, tiny piece of planning I see is that the narrative of painting us as the good guys is still, against all evidence, strongly crafted, as if we're already thinking what to write in the history when we emerge victorious. Except, of course, we won't.
So War should be avoided at all costs. A suicide would be less messy. How to avoid it? Russia can be convinced, I am sure, to recognize an independent Ukraine, but by diplomacy, although one independent from NATO too, and one which enforces autonomy of the Russian provinces, probably by enacting their transfer to the Russian Federation. Some things are irremediably lost. Regarding the last point, surely the amount of territory transfer can be the main point of negotiation. It is not to be excluded that Russia, if allowed to carry on as it did since the beginning of its intervention, will tear out much bigger parts of the territory that it initially contemplated in its wildest considerations, in particular, acquiring all the seafront. I believe good diplomacy could recognize and enshrine an Ukrainian Odessa. Willing to retain what Ukraine was before the Crimea annexation is delusional, and comes at a high price that what will eventually be retained is shrinking in proportion to the time of the conflict, as do the number of casualties and other war atrocities. I don't think it can go so far as the complete disappearance of Ukraine, as the Ukrainian people cannot be assimilated, but it can go to the complete disappearance of the World, if one stubbornly refuses to recognize the basic fact that Russia cannot lose this war, and that more difficult it is made for her to win it, the more she will claim as a booty (although, again, not all of Ukraine). The only way she can lose the war is direct NATO involvement, in which case the Nuclear logic will trigger. I'm going round and round in circles, when I should be looking at the Sea. So there is no exit from this story. There is one from my room as I'll be spending the last minutes of my Birthday in the warm and comforting, beautiful and peaceful streets of the Cyclades. There are places that don't look like as if they were on the verge of their imminent doom.